Jharkhand High Court
C.Rev./95/2025 of SOMNATH DAS Vs SHEOLI HATI on 1 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.95 of 2025 ----- Somnath Das, son of Late Sachindra Lal Das, aged about 52 years, Resident of 506/1, Krishna Apartments, 13 Ali Asker Road, Bangalore- 560001, P.O Vasanthnagar Cubbon Park District-Bangalore Urban. .......
2026:JHHC:29605-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No.95 of 2025
-----
Somnath Das, son of Late Sachindra Lal Das, aged about 52 years, Resident of 506/1, Krishna Apartments, 13 Ali Asker Road, Bangalore- 560001, P.O Vasanthnagar Cubbon Park District-Bangalore Urban.
....... …
Appellant/ Petitioner
Versus
Sheoli Hati, Daughter of Asit Kumar Hati, Resident of 1711, KAMET, Jamshedpur-831005, Town-Jamshedpur, PO-Kadma & PS-Kadma, District-East Singhbhum …
…Respondent/Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sakaldeo Singh Advocate
------
Order No.03/Dated: 1st October, 2026
I.A No.10115 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 14 days, since, as per the stamp reporting, the present civil review petition being Civil Review No. 95 of 2025 has been preferred after delay of 14 days.
2. The reason has been assigned as under paragraph no.7 and 8 thereof taking the ground that the petitioner could not procure the certified copy of the impugned order due to laches on the part of the then conducting learned counsel and, as such, the delay of 14 days occurred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, has raised no objection.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. We are conscious that if sufficient cause is being shown by the party concerned, the delay is to be condoned. Herein, the delay of 14 days 2026:JHHC:29605-DB
2
has been pointed out by the office and the reason shown to be sufficient has been stated in paragraph-7 and 8 of the instant interlocutory application referred hereinabove.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant civil review petition is to be condoned and, accordingly, condoned.
7. I.A No. 10115 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of. I.A No.14146 of 2026
8. The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking withdrawal of the present civil review petition being Civil Review No.95 of 2025.
9. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned counsel while pressing the instant interlocutory application has submitted that the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the present civil review petition.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised no objection.
11. Considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the instant interlocutory application being I.A No.14146 of 2026 stands allowed and disposed of. Civil Review No.95 of 2025
12. Consequently, the present civil review petition being Civil Review No.95 of 2025 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
13. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated:01/10/2025 Sudhir